Jharkhand High Court
Ram Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7492 of 2016
Ram Oraon .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Health Department, Ranchi.
3. Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum.
5. The District Malaria Officer, West Sinhbhum.
6. Director, Directorate of Provident Fund, Ranchi.
7. District Provident Fund Officer, West Singhbhum.
8. Churamani Oraon. .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to SC-VI
For the Respondent No.8 : Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Advocate
-----
13/ 06.04.2022 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is claiming death-cum-post retirement benefits on account
of death of his aunt Late Jaleshwari Oraon, who died issueless while working as
Anusevi on 25.1.2016 and nominated the petitioner in provident fund account and also
has executed a deed of Will in favour of the petitioner and as such, only the petitioner
is entitled to receive all such benefits being nephew of late employee.
Pursuant to direction passed by this Court, respondent State has come
out with the supplementary counter affidavit. In para-5 thereof, the respondent State
has clearly mentioned that "Jaleshwari Oraon was having family with daughters,
namely, Bhundu Oraon and Churamani Oraon and Dhani Oraon. Therefore, statement
given that she was issueless is absolutely false and incorrect".
Further in para-10, it has been mentioned that the claim of petitioner to
pay him the death-cum-post retiral benefits of Late Jaleshwari Oraon on the basis of
being a nominee and having a Will in his favour is completely misconstrued and is in
teeth of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3839 of 2014 (Viswas
Kumar Barnwal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and also in L.P.A. No. 91 of 2009
(Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad).
This Court in W.P.(S) No. 3839 of 2014 (supra) while dealing with the
issue of entitlement of property on the basis of nomination by the owner, has held as
under:-
"There cannot be any manner of doubts that the nomination of a
persons does not entitled the person to become the owner of the
property. A nominee holds only the property for executing and
disbursing the property amongst the legal heirs and entitlement of
the property has to be decided according to law of SUCCESSION."
So far as the claim of petitioner that there is a Will in his favour, this Court in
the case of Viswas Kumar Barnwal (supra), further held in para-23 as under:-
"..... the petitioner cannot claim ownership over the retiral dues
of the deceased employee. Coming to the question of entitlement
of the petitioner in so far as pension/ family pension is
concerned, I find that an employee during his life-time cannot
nominate a person for family pension as the ex-employee would
have no claim over the family pension and therefore, he cannot
make a testamentary disposition bequeathing family pension to a
person."
In the case of Smt. Violet Issaac and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725, where a widow made an application for grant of family
pension though, due to strained relationship her husband had nominated his brother to
receive the retiral benefits and also executed a Will in favour of his brother
bequeathing all his properties to him, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
".. the family pension scheme is to provide relief to the widow and
minor children of the deceased employee and since the rules do not
provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee
during his lifetime for the payment of family pension, the deceased
employee had no title to the same and therefore, he should not have
disposed of the same by nominating his brother by testamentary
disposition."
In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this Court is in full in
agreement with the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court.
As a result, this writ petition having no merit, fails. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for
obtaining succession certificate. The disputed facts cannot be looked into by this
Court while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
